|
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
 Posted - 05/11/2010 : 07:20:54
|
I thought this sounded like a good idea....then I read it.......
http://www.americansforresponsibility.org/
a highlight that make my blood boil
In recognition of the fact that the overwhelming majority of the American People believe in a God, the Congress shall make no law prohibiting the use of the word God or the display of religious symbols in government facilities, schools, courthouses or other federal properties. The Congress shall also pass no law prohibiting prayer in school. This in no way changes the principle that the Congress may make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
|
God damn it! These assholes wouldn't like it one bit if I erected a 20 foot pentagram in honor of my good buddy Satan right next to their nativity scene at the courthouse at Christmas time now would they? Do you think they would defend my right to do so? I'm thinking not.
Lucifer Lives! All Hail Satan!
|
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2010 : 07:53:44 [Permalink]
|
I'd also like to know what religious symbols would be acceptable. We had this controversy happen in my fair city a couple of years ago. The Christians put up a nativity scene in front of the courthouse. Then someone put up a Flying Spaghetti Monster, then someone put up some Wiccan symbol.....then things started got vandalized and everyone was hating on each other.
What about this whole thing don't the Christians understand.
Nativity scene in front of your house or church = Great!
Nativity scene in front of the courthouse = Bullshit! |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2010 : 09:15:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
I thought this sounded like a good idea....then I read it.......
http://www.americansforresponsibility.org/
a highlight that make my blood boil
In recognition of the fact that the overwhelming majority of the American People believe in a God, the Congress shall make no law prohibiting the use of the word God or the display of religious symbols in government facilities, schools, courthouses or other federal properties. The Congress shall also pass no law prohibiting prayer in school. This in no way changes the principle that the Congress may make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
|
|
Just goes to show how ignorant these people are. Their detailed argument is based upon the fallacy of popularity, an ahistorical insistence that Jefferson didn't mean to remove God from government, and an ahistorical insistence that antisocial behavior has risen since prayer has been removed from schools.
But beyond that, the proposed amendment only curtails Congress from prohibiting religiosity in government, when these idiots know full well that it has been the courts that have determined that school prayer and other mandated acts of faith are unconstitutional, and so the proposed amendment would have no effect whatsoever. So far as I know, Congress hasn't ever passed a law prohibiting the sorts of religious stuff these folks want the government to be able to do, it's always been the courts making such findings. Of course, they can't come out and propose an amendment which says, "The Supreme Court of the United States shall make no finding of law which prohibits the free exercise of religion by any government agent at any time," since they must know that such a thing would get them laughed out of the room in a heartbeat, and it would also allow Muslim principals to make Islamic calls for prayer over school PA systems, which is clearly not something that these people would want to have happen.
On the other hand, I like their amendment to limit property seizures. And the one giving the President a line-item veto. I think the amendment that demands a balanced budget will be for naught, since both major parties seem to agree on reckless spending. The other amendments, I'm not so sure. I'd need to read up on the tax system they're proposing, for example. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2010 : 12:42:45 [Permalink]
|
I don't like the idea of the line-item veto. Couldn't a president veto an integral line from the thing and make it do something entirely different assuming he can get 1/3 to support it in its new form? Why give the executive more power in general? I thought it was amusing that they offer support for it because both Reagan and Clinton requested it -- of course they did, they were executives! Executives have bipartisan support for increasing executive power. ;)
I would be willing to consider term limits for Congress. I'm afraid 40-year senators may acquire a bias by virtue of being part of the political culture for so long. I doubt members of Congress themselves would pass such a rule because they're self-interested, however.
Agreed @ #31. I just think it has no chance of passing. Plus, I don't like giving the president the power to choose which funds to cancel. Also, why would we use the average income for the past 3 years? Suppose we're in an upward trend we expect to continue or vice versa? And, really, I'm not so sure overspending at a moderate amount, if the benefit is good enough, is necessarily such a bad thing, and certainly don't think it should be harder to do than pass a new amendment (80% House and Senate).
I do like completely preventing eminent domain for the purpose of private development, and payment of higher than the market value for property taken for public projects. Property is not only taken, but the people are forced to move and find a new place to live, which may be hard to find, or more expensive, which is a lot of trouble to impose on them. Not a fan of deciding it by ballot initiatives and a new jury system, however. I have problems with how it is decided, but it's more an issue of political corruption (e.g. convenient peoples' property being bought for a new road), that I don't think a ballot initiative or jury system would cure, maybe more like an oversight board of some sort to police conflicts of interest, etc.
I remember rather clearly attending a meeting about a new road they were building near where I live and an engineer made a suggestion for the route and showed that it made more sense than the current, only to get a response of "this is a political problem, not an engineering problem."
Don't know about their tax system. Seems it would make sure those in poverty would not have to pay (and would be compensated before paying to prevent overlap). Why it is necessary to dismantle the IRS for this to work, I'm not sure. Even with a much simpler tax system, some entity has to manage it. Plus, IRS tends to be quite a useful source of information for fighting crime. A lot of people may disagree with taking away the ability of Congress to encourage behaviors with tax policy (I don't particularly like it, but many do). Though, they could still possibly do it by reducing the consumption tax on hybrid cars and other things they would like to encourage. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 05/11/2010 12:45:17 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2010 : 13:07:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
I don't like the idea of the line-item veto. Couldn't a president veto an integral line from the thing and make it do something entirely different assuming he can get 1/3 to support it in its new form? Why give the executive more power in general? I thought it was amusing that they offer support for it because both Reagan and Clinton requested it -- of course they did, they were executives! Executives have bipartisan support for increasing executive power. ;) |
I hadn't thought of that. Good point.| Agreed @ #31. I just think it has no chance of passing. Plus, I don't like giving the president the power to choose which funds to cancel. Also, why would we use the average income for the past 3 years? Suppose we're in an upward trend we expect to continue or vice versa? And, really, I'm not so sure overspending at a moderate amount, if the benefit is good enough, is necessarily such a bad thing, and certainly don't think it should be harder to do than pass a new amendment (80% House and Senate). |
I just don't think it would be difficult to get 80% of Congress to agree to spend more money. "Small government" people seem to be wildly in favor of the huge spending going on in Iraq, for example.| Don't know about their tax system. Seems it would make sure those in poverty would not have to pay (and would be compensated before paying to prevent overlap). Why it is necessary to dismantle the IRS for this to work, I'm not sure. Even with a much simpler tax system, some entity has to manage it. Plus, IRS tends to be quite a useful source of information for fighting crime. A lot of people may disagree with taking away the ability of Congress to encourage behaviors with tax policy (I don't particularly like it, but many do). Though, they could still possibly do it by reducing the consumption tax on hybrid cars and other things they would like to encourage. |
The authors are showing their ignorance again. From Wikipedia:Although the Sixteenth Amendment is often cited as the "source" of the Congressional power to tax incomes, at least one court has reiterated the point made in Brushaber and other cases that the Sixteenth Amendment itself did not grant the Congress the power to tax incomes (a power the Congress has had since 1789), but only removed the requirement, if any, that any income tax be apportioned among the states according to their respective populations. In other words, the 16th Amendment didn't create the IRS, it just meant that the Federal government didn't have to spend the income tax revenue according to census figures. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2010 : 17:34:29 [Permalink]
|
| I just don't think it would be difficult to get 80% of Congress to agree to spend more money. |
Oh, they would just have to get 80% to agree on spending more or they would have to get 80% to agree on spending for a particular thing?
| "Small government" people seem to be wildly in favor of the huge spending going on in Iraq, for example. |
Inconsistent ones  |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2010 : 19:32:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Oh, they would just have to get 80% to agree on spending more or they would have to get 80% to agree on spending for a particular thing? |
Reads to me like they'd just have to get 80% agreement on a budget larger than the limit, and not 80% agreement on any particular items.
The sad part is that they seem to misunderstand how the budget process works. The President creates the budget, and Congress just modifies and passes it. So under their scheme, it's to the President's advantage to create a massively over-spending budget with items to both parties can't tolerate to ensure that they can't reach agreement on it. Once the budget bill fails, the President gets to pick and choose whatever spending he wants, with no Congressional oversight whatsoever.
Talk about an expansion of executive powers! Far from what I had thought, that the proposed amendment would be mooted by spend-happy legislators, it would instead wind up being a tool of pure executive abuse. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2010 : 16:14:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
So under their scheme, it's to the President's advantage to create a massively over-spending budget with items to both parties can't tolerate to ensure that they can't reach agreement on it. Once the budget bill fails, the President gets to pick and choose whatever spending he wants, with no Congressional oversight whatsoever. |
Haha, nice find! Send that to them  |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 05/12/2010 16:15:16 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2010 : 18:43:06 [Permalink]
|
| Wouldn't work. The budget process is different than I thought, too. Of course, these folks' amendment 31 would need to repeal some old budgetary laws, as well as make the Federal budget binding (which it is not now), to have a hope of doing what they want it to do. Balanced-budget amendments have been tried and failed several times already. Theirs won't do better as it stands. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2010 : 23:30:32 [Permalink]
|
Line item veto is a bad idea all around.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Bill Of responsibilities
